Euro Car Parks - Knowle Park Cranleigh

M03

As the keeper I have received a parking charge by post from Euro Car Parks for not paying to park.

The signage was not clear and was not noticed while parking. The payment machines were located on the opposite side of the car park to the exit taken.

Unfortunately the noticed was received too late for there to still be dashcam footage from that day (arrived on day 14).

Anyway, standard appeal message has been submitted as taken from the newbies thread, which I am sure will be declined, and I will take it from there.

Coupon-mad

Get photos of the signs. One close up but the rest at distance, several pics showing areas with NO SIGN VISIBLE.

Can be worth a POPLA appeal if the signs are sparse or the £100 in small letters.

DO NOT PAY AT ALL.

M03

As suggested I revisited and got some photos from around the car park and especially from where the vehicle was parked. The signs are sparse and are also not a distinguishable colour (dark green). The main one near the machine doesn't have £100 in very large letters (included in the appeal rejection):



I will post my POPLA appeal below, which is formed of other appeals on this forum, but updated for the new BPA code of poractice (from June 2024) which is quite different https://www.britishparking-media.co.uk/news/private-parking-sector-single-code-of-practice-published

M03

Appeal re POPLA Code: XXX v Euro Car Parks Limited

Vehicle Registration: XXX 

POPLA ref: XXX

Euro Car Parks limited PCN number: XXX

I, the registered keeper of this vehicle, received a letter dated XXX acting as a notice to the registered keeper. My appeal to the operator – Euro Car Parks Limited – was submitted and acknowledged on XXX but subsequently rejected by an email dated XXX. I contend that I, as the keeper, am not liable for the alleged parking charge and wish to appeal against it on the following grounds: 

1) It is not clear to which directions the entrance sign applies and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces

2) No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice

3) Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Guidelines' applicable to ANPR (usage not clear from inside vehicle upon entering car park, signage around car park not prominent from all spaces)

4) No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA2012 requirements

5) The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate

6) The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for

1. It is not clear to which directions the entrance sign applies and signs in this car park are not prominent, clear or legible from all parking spaces 

BPA’s Code of Practice (The private Parking sector single Code of Practice version 1) (3.1.1) states:

"An entrance sign must be displayed and maintained at the entrance to controlled land to inform drivers as appropriate whether parking is permitted subject to terms and conditions, including payment, or is prohibited”

BPA’s Code of Practice (3.1.2) states:

“The size and positioning of the sign must take into account the expected speed and direction of travel of vehicles approaching the entrance and must be visible (i.e. not be obscured e.g. by foliage or other objects)”

Figures 1 to 4 below are regarding the entrance sign:

Figure 1: The vehicle entering the car park from Knowle Lane (from North).

Figure 2: Knowle Park sign. Other signage is visible but the Euro Car Parks sign is not.

Figure 3: Road divides. There are multiple directions of travel and also separate car parks, believed to be controlled separately and with different terms. At this point an unrelated green sign is obscuring the Euro Car Parks entrance sign.

Figure 4: About to enter the car park. The Euro Car Parks sign is now obscured by the height restrictor barrier.

Figures 5 to 8 are regarding signage within the car park:

Figure 5: Just past the height restrictor barrier. After entering the car park, there is no visible Euro Car Parks signage.

Figure 6: One view from the parking space the vehicle was parked in. No signage is located in the vicinity in and around the space.

Figure 7: Another view from the same space. Note that the sign highlighted in red only states car park opening times. The green arrow shows the direction taken to walk into the park.

Figure 8: Further along this path - no visible signage.

This case is more similar to the signage in POPLA decision 5960956830 on 02/06/16, where the Assessor Rochelle Merritt found as fact that signs in a similar size font in a busy car park where other unrelated signs were far larger, was inadequate: ''the signage is not of a good enough size to afford motorists the chance to read and understand the terms and conditions before deciding to remain in the car park. [...] In addition the operator's signs would not be clearly visible from a parking space [...] The appellant has raised other grounds for appeal but I have not dealt with these as I have allowed the appeal.'' 

Recently (September 2017) a not dissimilar POPLA appeal versus Euro Car Parks (car park: Kay Street, Bolton) was successful as the Assessor was not satisfied that adequate signage was placed throughout the site and therefore compliant with the BPA Code of Practice.

Figure 9: Revisiting the entrance on foot. Note that the photographer was on the path in order to get a clear angle of the sign, which is on the offside of the vehicle upon entry.

From the evidence shown above (Figure 9), the terms appear to be displayed inadequately, in very small letters. I put Euro Car Parks Limited to strict proof as to the size of the wording on their signs and the size of lettering for the most onerous term, the parking charge itself.

As further evidence that this is inadequate notice, Letter Height Visibility is discussed here: 

http://www.signazon.com/help-center/sign-letter-height-visibility-chart.aspx 

''When designing your sign, consider how you will be using it, as well as how far away the readers you want to impact will be. For example, if you are placing a sales advertisement inside your retail store, your text only needs to be visible to the people in the store. 1-2” letters (or smaller) would work just fine. However, if you are hanging banners and want drivers on a nearby highway to be able to see them, design your letters at 3” or even larger.''

When the driver arrived at the car park it was impossible to notice, let alone read and understand the terms and conditions being imposed. Upon further research it is apparent that the initial entrance signs in the car park are poorly located (too high, obscured and located on a split of roads), and the terms and conditions illegible. As a result, the driver did not have a fair opportunity to read about any of the terms and conditions involving this charge.

Bearing all the evidence above in mind, there was categorically no contract established between the driver and Euro Car Parks Limited. To draw on the basic guidelines of contract law for a contract to be effective the offer must be communicated. Therefore, there can be no acceptance of an agreement if the other person is without knowledge of the offer.

2. No Evidence of Landowner Authority - the operator is put to strict proof of full compliance with the BPA Code of Practice 

As this operator does not have proprietary interest in the land, I require that they produce an unredacted copy of the contract with the landowner. The contract and any 'site agreement' or 'User Manual' setting out details including exemptions - such as any 'genuine customer' or 'genuine resident' exemptions or any site occupier's 'right of veto' charge cancellation rights – is key evidence to define what this operator is authorised to do and any circumstances where the landowner/firms on site in fact have a right to cancellation of a charge. It cannot be assumed, just because an agent is contracted to put some signs up and issue Parking Charge Notices, that the agent is also authorised to make contracts with all or any category of visiting drivers and/or to enforce the charge in court in their own name (legal action regarding land use disputes generally being a matter for a landowner only).

Witness statements are not sound evidence of the above, often being pre-signed, generic documents not even identifying the case in hand or even the site rules. A witness statement might in some cases be accepted by POPLA but in this case it is unlikely to sufficiently evidence the definition of the services provided by each party to the agreement.

Nor would it define vital information such as charging days/times, any exemption clauses, and basic information such as the land boundary and bays where enforcement applies/does not apply. Not forgetting evidence of the various restrictions which the landowner has authorised can give rise to a charge and of course, how much the landowner authorises this agent to charge (which cannot be assumed to be the sum in small print on a sign because template private parking terms and sums have been known not to match the actual landowner agreement).

Section 14.1 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:

“Where controlled land is being managed on behalf of a landowner(s), before a parking charge can be issued written confirmation must be obtained by the parking operator from the landowner(s) covering:

a) the identity of the landowner(s)

b) a boundary map of the land to be managed;

c) such byelaws as may apply to the land relating to the management of parking;

d) the permission granted to the parking operator by the landowner(s) and the duration of that permission

e) the parking terms and conditions that are to be applied by the parking operator, including as appropriate the duration of free parking permitted, parking tariffs, and specific permissions and exemptions, e.g. for staff, residents or those stopping for short periods such as taxi and minicab drivers, delivery drivers and couriers;

f) the means by which parking charges will be issued;

g) responsibility for obtaining relevant consents e.g. planning or advertising consents relating to signs h) the obligations under which the parking operator is working, in compliance with this Code and as a member of an ATA;

i) notification of the documentation that the parking operator may be required to supply on request to authorised bodies detailing the relationship with the landowner; and

j) the parking operator’s approach to the handling of appeals against parking

charges.”

3. Failure to comply with the data protection 'ICO Guidelines' applicable to ANPR (usage not clear from inside vehicle upon entering car park, signage around car park not prominent from all spaces)

BPA’s Code of Practice Section 3 states that: 

“NOTE 3: In meeting obligations to display signs informing drivers of the use of camera surveillance equipment and associated information about their data privacy rights under the GDPR, operators should avoid overcomplicating signs with text that crowds out space for display of the key terms and conditions for staying, e.g. payment of tariff and display of permit.”

The guidelines from the Information Commissioner’s Office can be found at:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/cctv-and-video-surveillance/guidance-on-video-surveillance-including-cctv/

The ICO’s CCTV Guidance makes the following assertions:

“This includes connected databases utilising Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)”
“The recommendations in this guidance are all based on the principles of UK data protection law”

“You need to consider the privacy issues involved with using new surveillance systems, such as lawfulness and transparency. You should assess whether the use is necessary and proportionate and appropriately solves a problem. You should always consider less privacy intrusive methods of achieving this need where possible, or explain why these alternatives are not suitable or sustainable.”

“You should also look at the problem the surveillance system is supposed to address, and show whether or not the system will meet this need. You should base your assessment on reliable evidence and show whether the proposed surveillance system can be justified as proportionate to the problem identified.”

“Regardless of the sector you operate in, if you are using or intend to use an ANPR system, it is important that you undertake a DPIA [Data Protection Impact Assessment] prior to deployment. You should show that the use is necessary and proportionate in the circumstances, and that you have minimised the risks. This is particularly important given the amount of data an ANPR system can collect in a relatively short amount of time. You should also ensure that the information your ANPR system processes is limited to what you need to achieve your purpose, and that you are able to justify your decisions surrounding the data it captures.”

The quotations above taken directly from the ICO’s CCTV Guidance state that if Euro Car Parks Limited wish to use ANPR cameras then they must undertake a data protection impact assessment to justify its use and show that its introduction is proportionate and necessary. It also states that Euro Car Parks Limited must regularly evaluate whether it is necessary and proportionate to continue using it.

It therefore follows that I require Euro Car Parks Limited to provide proof of regular privacy impact assessments in order to comply with the ICO’s CCTV Guidance and BPA’s Code of Practice. I also require the outcome of said privacy impact assessments to show that its use is “justified as proportionate to the problem identified”.

M03

4. No Evidence of Period Parked – NtK does not meet PoFA 2012 requirements 

Contrary to the mandatory provisions of the BPA Code of Practice, there is no record to show that the vehicle was parked versus attempting to read the terms and conditions before deciding against parking/entering into a contract.

PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 paragraph 9 refers at numerous times to the “period of parking”. Most notably, paragraph 9(2)(a) requires the NtK to:

“specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;”

Euro Car Parks Limited’s NtK simply claims that the vehicle “entered Knowle Park - Cranleigh at XXX and departed at XXX”. At no stage does Euro Car Parks Limited explicitly specify the “period of parking to which the notice relates”, as required by POFA 2012.

Euro Car Parks Limited uses ANPR to capture images of vehicles entering and leaving the area to calculate their length of stay. Euro Car Parks Limited, however, does not provide any direct evidence of its alleged violation. Euro Car Parks Limited cannot substitute “entry/exit” or “time in car park” in place of the POFA requirement - “period of parking” - and hold the keeper liable as a result.

By virtue of the nature of an ANPR system recording only entry and exit times, Euro Car Parks Limited are not able to definitively state the period of parking.

I require Euro Car Parks Limited to provide evidence to show the vehicle in question was parked on the date/time (for the duration claimed) and at the location stated in the NtK.

Recent investigation (27 Apr 2018) by BBC

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43912327) shows that the private parking industry is unregulated and does not have any accountability. Various cases show the industry’s priority is maximising the penalty received from the motorist without due regard to the integrity of the evidence. Euro Car Parks is specifically highlighted due to the rapidly increasing amount of tickets issued. Private parking operators are financially incentivised not to use the original image as evidence, but putting partial evidence together to generate a case biased towards generating a penalty fee. Based on the fact above, I require Euro Car Parks Limited to produce strong evidence, audited by qualified third party, to prove that its process is not biased to suit its financial objective.

5. The ANPR System is Neither Reliable nor Accurate 

Euro Car Parks Limited’s NtK simply claims “that the vehicle “entered Knowle Park - Cranleigh at XXX and departed at XXX”. Euro Car Parks Limited states the images and time stamps are collected by its ANPR camera system installed on site.

The British Parking Association DOES NOT AUDIT the ANPR camera systems in use by parking operators, and the BPA has NO WAY to ensure that the systems are in good working order or that the data collected is accurate. Independent research has NOT found that the technology is 'generally accurate' or proportionate, or reliable at all. Councils are limited to the use of ANPR to specific on-street cases and not private land or off-street parking.

As proof of this assertion here are two statements by the BPA themselves, the first one designed to stop POPLA falling into error about assumed audits: 

Steve Clark, Head of Operational Services at the BPA emailed a POPLA 'wrong decision' victim back in January 2018 regarding this repeated misinformation about BPA somehow doing 'ANPR system audits', and Mr Clark says: 

"You were concerned about a comment from the POPLA assessor who determined your case which said: 

"In terms of the technology of the cameras themselves, the British Parking Association audits the camera systems in use by parking operators in order to ensure that they are in good working order and that the data collected is accurate" You believe that this statement may have been a contributory factor to the POPLA decision going against you, and required answers to a number of questions from us.

POPLA have conceded that the Assessor's comments may have been a misrepresentation:

''Our auditors check operators compliance with this Code clause and not the cameras themselves.''

Euro Car Parks Limited is put to strict proof that the system accurately records vehicle registrations, and that the internal time is calibrated and recorded correctly, and that the aforementioned is independently audited.

6. The Signs Fail to Transparently Warn Drivers of what the ANPR Data will be used for 

The signs fail to transparently warn drivers of what the ANPR data will be used for which breaches the BPA Code of Practice and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 due to inherent failure to indicate the 'commercial intent' of the cameras.

Section 7 of the BPA Code of Practice advises operators that they may use ANPR camera technology to “remotely manage parking on controlled land” as long as they do this “so overtly, and in a reasonable, consistent and transparent manner. In particular parking operators must make sure the data they are collecting is accurate, securely held and cannot be tampered with”. The Code of Practice requires that car park signs must tell drivers that the operator is using this technology and what it will use the data captured by ANPR cameras for.

Euro Car Parks Limited’s signs do not comply with these requirements because these car park signage failed to accurately explain what the ANPR data would be used for, which is a 'failure to identify its commercial intent', contrary to the BPA CoP and Consumer law.

There is no information that indicates that these camera images would be used in order to issue Parking Charge Notices. There is absolutely no suggestion in the sentence above that the cameras are in any way related to Parking Charge Notices.

END

M03

I have removed parts that don't apply and added details in others. Of course any suggestions are very much appreciated. Thanks in advance

1505grandad

"Section 14.1 of the BPA Code of Practice defines the mandatory requirements and I put this operator to strict proof of full compliance:"

A heads-up  -  check the "period of transition" chart (page 3 of single CoP) re existing signage i.e.:-

"All aspects of the Code must be complied with except signage or other related clauses applicable to existing sites"

M03

Thanks, I'll check what has changed between the codes in regards to the signs

M03

Good news with this. I appealed to Euro Car Parks, mainly on the grounds of lack of signage. They rejected it, obviously. I had no response from the trust that manage the park, which was disappointing.

I then appealed via POPLA on the same grounds. Euro Cark Parks responded with details such as a map of the car park (with errors), and year old photos of the car park. They even included a photo of the entrance with the entrance sign obscured, which was one of my original appeal points, which was helpful. I replied with comprehensive counter arguments for the signage, including photos.

POPLA accepted my appeal on that front and said that any other points made would not be looked into, not would they counter the insufficient signage.

This was my first time going through this process and though quite consuming, it's satisfying now that it's over.

Coupon-mad

M03 said:

Good news with this. I appealed to Euro Car Parks, mainly on the grounds of lack of signage. They rejected it, obviously. I had no response from the trust that manage the park, which was disappointing.

I then appealed via POPLA on the same grounds. Euro Cark Parks responded with details such as a map of the car park (with errors), and year old photos of the car park. They even included a photo of the entrance with the entrance sign obscured, which was one of my original appeal points, which was helpful. I replied with comprehensive counter arguments for the signage, including photos.

POPLA accepted my appeal on that front and said that any other points made would not be looked into, not would they counter the insufficient signage.

This was my first time going through this process and though quite consuming, it's satisfying now that it's over.

Great stuff. Well done!

Please post the POPLA decision in POPLA DECISIONS with a link to this thread and say who you beat.

And PLEASE add ten paragraph breaks into the POPLA decision before saving your comment there, so we don't see their wall of text!